Microsoft Corp. v. United States
The Supreme Court declined to bypass the normal appeals process in the government's antitrust case against Microsoft, sending the case to the D.C. Circuit instead of hearing it directly. In a related case, the Court also refused to take up the matter before a lower appeals court had ruled.
Justice Breyer dissented, arguing the fast-moving technology industry and the case's economic importance justified letting the Supreme Court hear the appeal right away rather than waiting for the Court of Appeals to weigh in first.
How it got here: A federal district court ruled against Microsoft in an antitrust suit; the parties disputed whether the appeal should go directly to the Supreme Court or first to a court of appeals.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The federal government and several states sued Microsoft for antitrust violations, and a federal district judge ruled against the company, ordering major remedies. Microsoft and the government disagreed about which court should hear the appeal next, with one side seeking to send the case straight to the Supreme Court under a law allowing direct appeals in certain major antitrust cases.
The question before the Court
Should the Supreme Court hear Microsoft's antitrust appeal directly, skipping a review by the federal court of appeals first?
Why it matters
The decision means the high-profile antitrust case against Microsoft will go through an additional layer of appellate review before the Supreme Court considers it, likely delaying a final resolution. It also means the D.C. Circuit will have a chance to narrow and clarify the legal issues before the Supreme Court ever takes them up.
What changes now
The Microsoft antitrust case will proceed first through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which will consider and likely narrow the legal issues before any further Supreme Court review. The companion case will also go through ordinary appellate review rather than skipping ahead to the Supreme Court. This order does not resolve the antitrust dispute itself and is not a final decision on the merits.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether Microsoft violated antitrust law or what remedies, if any, are appropriate. It only decides which court should hear the appeal next, leaving the merits of the antitrust dispute to be resolved later.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Breyer
“The case significantly affects an important sector of the economy — a sector characterized by rapid technological change.”Breyer explains why he believed the Supreme Court should hear the Microsoft appeal directly.
Justice Breyer would have had the Supreme Court hear the Microsoft appeal directly rather than sending it to the Court of Appeals first. He reasoned that the case significantly affected an important, fast-changing technology sector, and that reaching a final decision quickly could bring valuable legal certainty. He acknowledged the benefits of letting an appeals court narrow the issues first, but concluded the Supreme Court could adequately handle the case with extra briefing and argument time.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- A federal law, the Expediting Act, lets the government seek direct Supreme Court review of certain major antitrust rulings, skipping the regular court of appeals, but leaves the decision whether to accept that shortcut up to the Court's discretion.
- The order itself does not spell out the majority's reasoning, but the Court chose not to use that shortcut here, instead directing that the case go through the ordinary appellate process at the D.C. Circuit.
- The Court separately declined to grant early review, before any appeals court had ruled, in a related companion case, meaning that dispute would also proceed through the normal appellate channel first.
- Justice Breyer dissented from that approach, reasoning that the case's importance to a fast-changing technology sector and the value of quick legal certainty favored the Supreme Court hearing the appeal directly rather than waiting for an intermediate appellate ruling.